Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 311A — Collection of Voice Sample — Power of Magistrate — Applicability of Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P. (2019) 8 SCC 1 The Magistrate is empowered to direct any person (whether accused or witness) to provide a voice sample for the purpose of investigation. The absence of an explicit statutory provision in the Cr.P.C., 1973 does not bar such direction in view of the law laid down in Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P., (2019) 8 SCC 1, which holds the Magistrate competent to issue such direction till statutory incorporation. The principle applies equally to witnesses and accused alike, since the prohibition under Article 20(3) of the Constitution extends to testimonial compulsion, not to neutral physical evidence such as handwriting, signature, fingerprint, or voice samples. Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — S. 349 — Express Provision for Voice Sample Even assuming the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 applies, the position is now beyond doubt by virtue of Section 349 BNSS, which specifically empowers the Magistrate to direct a person to give a voice sample. Hence, irrespective of whether the case is governed by Cr.P.C. or BNSS, the Magistrate’s order was valid. Constitution of India — Article 20(3) — Self-Incrimination — Voice Sample — Not Testimonial Evidence Taking of a voice sample, like handwriting or fingerprint specimen, does not amount to self-incrimination under Article 20(3) since it does not, by itself, incriminate the person. It merely constitutes material or physical evidence used for comparison with other evidence discovered during investigation. Followed: State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808. Applied: Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P., (2019) 8 SCC 1. Distinguished: None. Practice and Procedure — Reference to Larger Bench — Effect of Closure of Reference The High Court erred in refusing to follow Ritesh Sinha merely on the ground that a reference was pending before a Larger Bench. The said reference stood closed on default, and the binding precedent of this Court continued to govern the field. High Courts are bound to follow binding precedent unless overruled by a larger bench of the Supreme Court. Result High Court’s order set aside. Order of Magistrate directing voice sample restored. Appeal allowed.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 311A — Collection of Voice Sample — Power of Magistrate — Applicability of Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P. (2019) 8 SCC 1

The Magistrate is empowered to direct any person (whether accused or witness) to provide a voice sample for the purpose of investigation. The absence of an explicit statutory provision in the Cr.P.C., 1973 does not bar such direction in view of the law laid down in Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P., (2019) 8 SCC 1, which holds the Magistrate competent to issue such direction till statutory incorporation.

The principle applies equally to witnesses and accused alike, since the prohibition under Article 20(3) of the Constitution extends to testimonial compulsion, not to neutral physical evidence such as handwriting, signature, fingerprint, or voice samples.

Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — S. 349 — Express Provision for Voice Sample

Even assuming the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 applies, the position is now beyond doubt by virtue of Section 349 BNSS, which specifically empowers the Magistrate to direct a person to give a voice sample. Hence, irrespective of whether the case is governed by Cr.P.C. or BNSS, the Magistrate’s order was valid.

Constitution of India — Article 20(3) — Self-Incrimination — Voice Sample — Not Testimonial Evidence

Taking of a voice sample, like handwriting or fingerprint specimen, does not amount to self-incrimination under Article 20(3) since it does not, by itself, incriminate the person. It merely constitutes material or physical evidence used for comparison with other evidence discovered during investigation.

Followed: State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808.
Applied: Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P., (2019) 8 SCC 1.
Distinguished: None.

Practice and Procedure — Reference to Larger Bench — Effect of Closure of Reference

The High Court erred in refusing to follow Ritesh Sinha merely on the ground that a reference was pending before a Larger Bench. The said reference stood closed on default, and the binding precedent of this Court continued to govern the field. High Courts are bound to follow binding precedent unless overruled by a larger bench of the Supreme Court.

held that

High Court’s order set aside. Order of Magistrate directing voice sample restored.

Appeal allowed.

2025 INSC 1223

Page 1 of 7

Crl. A. @ SLP(Crl.) No. 5518 of 2025

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. of 2025

[@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5518 of 2025]

Rahul Agarwal

…Appellant

Versus

The State of West Bengal & Anr.

…Respondents

J U D G M E N T

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. A purely academic question covered by a binding

precedent of this Court, is agitated unnecessarily by the

respondent herein and entertained egregiously by the High

Court. The High Court has also refused to follow the binding

precedent of this Court on the ground that there is a reference

made to a Larger Bench. The reference, as pointed out by the

appellant, has been closed unceremoniously, on default. 

Page 2 of 7

Crl. A. @ SLP(Crl.) No. 5518 of 2025

3. The records of the appeal reveal that a young married

woman of 25 years of age died on 16.02.2021, which led to an

allegation of harassment and torture at the matrimonial home

and counter allegation that the deceased together with her

parents misappropriated cash and jewellery belonging to the

family of the husband. A cousin of the husband of the deceased

filed a complaint before the police in which the deceased’s

father and mother were arrayed as accused. Upon investigation

the Investigating Officer (I.O) was informed that the 2

nd

respondent acted as the agent of the father of the deceased and

threatened a witness who alleged that he was privy to the

extortion demand made by the father through the 2nd

respondent. The I.O hence required the 2nd respondent to be

subjected to a voice sample test for which collection of the

voice sample was sought before the jurisdictional Magistrate’s

Court. To this end, a petition, Annexure P11 was filed before

the jurisdictional Magistrate which was allowed by Annexure

P13 order.

4. The second respondent challenged the same before the

High Court and the High Court by the impugned order set aside 

Page 3 of 7

Crl. A. @ SLP(Crl.) No. 5518 of 2025

the order of the Magistrate finding that a similar question was

referred to a Larger Bench. As has been rightly pointed out by

the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the said

reference has been closed as per Appendix B.

5. We have heard Mr. Dama Sheshadri Naidu, learned

Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants-complainant and

Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing for the 2

nd

respondent, whose voice sample is to be taken. The learned

counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that the order

was passed when the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) was

in force and though Section 349 of the Bhartiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 empowered the Magistrate to

pass an order inter alia directing a person to provide a voice

sample, the Cr.P.C. does not have any such provision. It is this

issue which has been referred for consideration before the

Larger Bench.

6. The reference, as we see from the questions extracted in

the impugned order, was whether the direction of this Court

enabling the Magistrate to pass an order directing the accused 

Page 4 of 7

Crl. A. @ SLP(Crl.) No. 5518 of 2025

to provide a voice sample would apply in the case of a witness.

In the present case, the question is raised especially on the

ground that it would lead to infringement of the right of the

witness under Article 20(3), which on comparison of the voice

sample could result in arraigning the witness as an accused.

7. The question squarely arose in Ritesh Sinha v. State of

Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Crl. Appeal No.2003 of 2012)1 dated

02.08.2019 based on which the reference was made. This Court

was concerned with a conversation between two accused who

were alleged to have collected money from different people on

the promise of jobs, which did not materialise. The specific

question raised was with respect to the Magistrate not being

empowered to pass an order directing furnishing of a voice

sample. This Court referred to the judgment in State of Bombay

v. Kathi Kalu Oghad2, wherein an identical plea of selfincrimination in providing specimen handwriting, signature or

finger impression was considered in the following manner:

“(12) In order that a testimony by an accused person

may be said to have been self-incriminatory, the

compulsion of which comes within the prohibition of

1

(2019) 8 SCC 1

2 AIR 1961 SC 1808

Page 5 of 7

Crl. A. @ SLP(Crl.) No. 5518 of 2025

the constitutional provision, it must be of such a

character that by itself it should have the tendency of

incriminating the accused, if not also of actually doing

so. In other words, it should be a statement which

makes the case against the accused person at least

probable, considered by itself. A specimen

handwriting or signature or finger impressions by

themselves are no testimony at all, being wholly

innocuous, because they are unchangeable; except,

in rare cases where the ridges of the fingers or the

style of writing have been tampered with. They are

only materials for comparison in order to lend

assurance to the Court that its inference based on

other pieces of evidence is reliable. They are neither

oral nor documentary evidence but belong to the third

category of material evidence which is outside the

limit of 'testimony'.”

xxx xxx xxx

"(32)......... It has to be noticed that Article 20(3) of our

Constitution does not say that an accused person shall

not be compelled to be a witness. It says that such a

person shall not be compelled to be a witness against

himself. The question that arises therefore is: Is an

accused person furnishing evidence against himself,

when he gives his specimen handwriting, or

impressions of his fingers, palm or foot? The answer

to this must, in our opinion, be in the negative.”

8. Following the aforesaid precedent, it was held in Ritesh

Sinha1 that despite absence of explicit provisions in Cr.P.C., a

Judicial Magistrate must be conceded the power to order a

person, to give a sample of his voice for the purpose of

investigation for a crime. We specifically note that this Court

had not spoken only of the accused and specifically employed 

Page 6 of 7

Crl. A. @ SLP(Crl.) No. 5518 of 2025

the words ‘a person’, consciously because the Rule against selfincrimination applies equally to any person whether he be an

accused or a witness. It was also directed that till explicit

provisions are incorporated in the Cr.P.C., the Judicial

Magistrate will be so empowered by virtue of the said

judgment. The issue was also pending with the Government

and with the advent of the BNSS, it has been specifically

incorporated under Section 349.

9. We need not hence consider the question as to whether it

is the Cr.P.C. or the BNSS which would be applicable to the

present case. If it is the Cr.P.C., the three Judge Bench decision

in Ritesh Sinha1 permits the same on the identical principle

adopted by this Court in Kathi Kalu Oghad2 to permit

furnishing of handwriting, signature and finger impressions.

The said sampling is similar to voice sampling, as now possible

by reason of the advancing technology. If it is the BNSS that is

applicable, then there is a specific provision enabling such

sampling. The reasoning was also that mere furnishing of a

sample of the fingerprint, signature or handwriting would not

incriminate the person as such. It would have to be compared 

Page 7 of 7

Crl. A. @ SLP(Crl.) No. 5518 of 2025

with the material discovered on investigation, which alone

could incriminate the person giving the sample, which would

not fall under a testimonial compulsion, thus not falling foul of

the rule against self-incrimination.

10. We hence do not find any reason to uphold the impugned

order and set it aside. The 2nd respondent shall act in

accordance with the order passed by the Magistrate.

11. The appeal is hence allowed reversing the order of the

High Court and restoring that of the Magistrate.

12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

………….………………… CJI.

 (B. R. GAVAI)

………….……………………. J.

 (K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

New Delhi;

October 13 , 2025.

LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 — Ss. 4, 5-A, 6 and 11 — Scope of quashing and beneficiaries thereof — Held, quashing of acquisition proceedings in Kedar Nath Yadav v. State of W.B., AIR 2016 SC 4156, was a remedial exercise targeted to protect vulnerable and resource-deficient agricultural communities — The relief of restoration directed therein was not intended to extend to industrial or commercial entities possessing financial capacity and institutional access — Respondent No.1, being an incorporated manufacturing company with a 60,000 sq. ft. industrial unit, stood outside the “protective framework” envisaged in Kedar Nath Yadav — The benefit of land restoration cannot be claimed by such parties merely on parity with cultivators — Principles of parity and representational PIL relief do not apply to commercial enterprises. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA — Art. 14 — Equality clause — Parity of treatment — Parity cannot be invoked by unequals — Remedy designed for disadvantaged farmers and poor cultivators cannot be extended to commercial manufacturers with financial and legal sophistication — Relief in Kedar Nath Yadav was class-specific and structured to redress systemic vulnerability. LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 — Ss. 5-A, 6 — Objections and estoppel — Filing of objections under S. 5-A, without pursuing statutory or judicial remedies, amounts to waiver — Once acquisition attained finality by acceptance of compensation and non-challenge, party is estopped from subsequently seeking restoration on the strength of another’s litigation — Acceptance of compensation without demur constitutes acquiescence — Principles reiterated: Delhi Admn. v. Gurdip Singh Uban, (2000) 7 SCC 296; Abhey Ram v. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 421; Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. (P) Ltd., (1996) 11 SCC 501. PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION — Scope of representative relief — PIL in Kedar Nath Yadav represented the cause of poor cultivators facing displacement — Commercial landholders with means to individually litigate fall outside representational scope — They cannot later claim to be “similarly situated”. DOCTRINE OF DELAY AND LACHES — Respondent’s silence for 10 years (2006–2016), despite receipt of full compensation, fatal — Delay and acquiescence bar relief — Restitution cannot be sought after two decades and post-modification of land during restoration to farmers. REMEDIES — Equitable limitation of relief — Judicial benefits flow from diligent pursuit of remedies, not passive opportunism — Extending relief to dormant parties would incentivize inaction and undermine finality in land acquisition — Relief accordingly denied. DIRECTIONS — However, Respondent No.1 permitted to remove or auction its plant, structures, and machinery under supervision of District Magistrate, Hooghly, within three months — LAC to adjust compensation considering salvage value — Recovery of excess payment barred — Fresh demarcation to resume possession by State — Compliance within four months.

LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 — Ss. 4, 5-A, 6 and 11 — Scope of quashing and beneficiaries thereof —

Held, quashing of acquisition proceedings in Kedar Nath Yadav v. State of W.B., AIR 2016 SC 4156, was a remedial exercise targeted to protect vulnerable and resource-deficient agricultural communities — The relief of restoration directed therein was not intended to extend to industrial or commercial entities possessing financial capacity and institutional access — Respondent No.1, being an incorporated manufacturing company with a 60,000 sq. ft. industrial unit, stood outside the “protective framework” envisaged in Kedar Nath Yadav — The benefit of land restoration cannot be claimed by such parties merely on parity with cultivators — Principles of parity and representational PIL relief do not apply to commercial enterprises.

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA — Art. 14 — Equality clause — Parity of treatment —

Parity cannot be invoked by unequals — Remedy designed for disadvantaged farmers and poor cultivators cannot be extended to commercial manufacturers with financial and legal sophistication — Relief in Kedar Nath Yadav was class-specific and structured to redress systemic vulnerability.

LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 — Ss. 5-A, 6 — Objections and estoppel —

Filing of objections under S. 5-A, without pursuing statutory or judicial remedies, amounts to waiver — Once acquisition attained finality by acceptance of compensation and non-challenge, party is estopped from subsequently seeking restoration on the strength of another’s litigation — Acceptance of compensation without demur constitutes acquiescence — Principles reiterated: Delhi Admn. v. Gurdip Singh Uban, (2000) 7 SCC 296; Abhey Ram v. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 421; Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. (P) Ltd., (1996) 11 SCC 501.

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION — Scope of representative relief —

PIL in Kedar Nath Yadav represented the cause of poor cultivators facing displacement — Commercial landholders with means to individually litigate fall outside representational scope — They cannot later claim to be “similarly situated”.

DOCTRINE OF DELAY AND LACHES —

Respondent’s silence for 10 years (2006–2016), despite receipt of full compensation, fatal — Delay and acquiescence bar relief — Restitution cannot be sought after two decades and post-modification of land during restoration to farmers.

REMEDIES — Equitable limitation of relief —

Judicial benefits flow from diligent pursuit of remedies, not passive opportunism — Extending relief to dormant parties would incentivize inaction and undermine finality in land acquisition — Relief accordingly denied.

DIRECTIONS —

However, Respondent No.1 permitted to remove or auction its plant, structures, and machinery under supervision of District Magistrate, Hooghly, within three months — LAC to adjust compensation considering salvage value — Recovery of excess payment barred — Fresh demarcation to resume possession by State — Compliance within four months.

2025 INSC 1222 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. __________ / 2025

 (Arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 33701/2018)

The State of West Bengal and Others ...Appellants

versus

M/S Santi Ceramics Pvt. Limited and Another …Respondents

JUDGMENT

SURYA KANT, J.

Leave granted.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the State of West

Bengal against the judgment dated 11.10.2018 passed by a

Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta (High Court) in

MAT No. 1260/2017 (Impugned Judgment). By way of the

Impugned Judgment, the High Court has upheld the order of the

learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 29621/2016, directing the State

to restore 28 Bighas of land (Subject Land), including all

structures erected thereon, to M/s Santi Ceramics Private

Limited (Respondent No.1).

3. The controversy arises in the aftermath of this Court's judgment

in Kedar Nath Yadav v. State of West Bengal1

, whereby the

1 AIR 2016 SC 4156.

Page 1 of 20

land acquisition proceedings for establishing the manufacturing

plant of TATA Motors’ then flagship car “NANO” were quashed. To

explicate, in 2006, pursuant to TATA Motors' decision to

establish this facility in Singur, Hooghly District, West Bengal,

the Appellants had initiated acquisition spanning over 1000

acres (Singur Project). The acquisition encompassed

agricultural lands and lands converted for non-agricultural

purposes. The instant appeal concerns restoration of the Subject

Land, which formed part of the acquisition. The High Court has

accorded restoration in favour of Respondent No.1 on ground of

parity with cultivators to whom such a relief was granted by this

Court in Kedar Nath Yadav (supra).

A. FACTS

4. To appreciate the genesis of the dispute at hand, it is necessary

to examine the factual matrix, which is set out below:

4.1. Respondent No.1 purchased the Subject Land in the year 2001-

2002 with the objective of establishing a manufacturing facility

for the production of ceramic electrical insulators. The Subject

Land at the time was statedly an agricultural land. Upon

application by Respondent No.1, the District Land and Land

Reforms Officer, Hooghly, granted approval on 09.04.2003 for its

conversion to industrial use, thereby enabling the formalization

of commercial operations on the premises.

Page 2 of 20

4.2. Following the approval, Respondent No.1 established a

manufacturing unit, replete with necessary infrastructure, plant

and machinery, and commenced industrial operations. This

trajectory of events took a decisive turn on 21.07.2006 when the

Land Acquisition Collector, Hooghly (LAC), issued notifications

under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act),

initiating acquisition proceedings for the Singur Project.

4.3. In response, Respondent No.1 filed objections under Section 5-

A(1) of the 1894 Act on 21.08.2006, seeking exclusion of its

operational manufacturing unit from the acquisition. The

objections were rejected by LAC, whereupon the Appellants

issued a declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act on

30.08.2006. Pursuant to the declaration, the LAC passed the

award for the Subject Land on 25.09.2006, quantifying total

compensation at INR 14,54,75,744, comprising INR 5,46,75,744

for land value and INR 9,08,00,000 for structures. The said

compensation was duly deposited, and the Appellants thereafter

took possession of the acquired land, which was thereupon

handed over to TATA Motors.

4.4. The Singur Project soon evolved into a matter of considerable

public interest and legal controversy, generating widespread

protests by affected farmers against displacement from their

holdings. The acquisition, impacting fertile agricultural land,

highlighted the tension between industrial development and

farming communities. Among the various affected parties, one

Kedarnath Yadav approached the High Court through a Public

Interest Litigation (PIL) in W.P. No. 23836 (W) of 2006,

challenging the acquisition proceedings. Several similar writ

petitions were filed by other affected parties, which were then

Page 3 of 20

clubbed together and dismissed by a common judgment dated

18.01.2008, rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court. The

acquisition was upheld after holding that it was in public interest

and for public purpose.

4.5. Subsequently, in 2010, TATA Motors abandoned the Singur

Project and withdrew from the site, with the Appellants regaining

possession of the acquired land. Parallelly, the dismissal of the

petitions by the High Court was assailed before this Court,

culminating in the judgment dated 31.08.2016 in Kedar Nath

Yadav (supra). While both judges on the Bench delivered

separate opinions with divergent reasoning, they concurred on

quashing the acquisition proceedings on the following grounds:

i) Violation of Section 5-A procedures as the LAC mechanically

rejected objections without proper consideration and failed

to conduct an effective inquiry;

ii) Non-application of mind by the authorities as both the LAC

and State Government failed to objectively consider the

objections and recommendations as mandated under the

1894 Act;

iii) Procedural defects in compensation proceedings as awards

were passed without following due process under Section 11

of the 1894 Act; and

Page 4 of 20

iv) Disproportionate impact on agricultural communities as the

acquisition affected fertile agricultural land and displaced

poor agricultural workers who lacked the means to challenge

governmental action.

4.6. Consequently, this Court directed restoration of land to the

original landowners/cultivators by the State within a period of

twelve weeks.

4.7. Respondent No.1 till then had no grievance and did not challenge

the acquisition of the Subject Land before any forum. However,

as soon as this Court delivered judgment in Kedar Nath Yadav

(supra), Respondent No.1 also submitted a representation on

28.11.2016, to the Appellants stating that the Subject Land had

not been returned within the prescribed period of twelve weeks

as postulated by this Court in Kedar Nath Yadav (supra), and

sought the handing over of the possession of the land,

structures, and plant & machinery. The Appellants, however, did

not restore the possession to Respondent No.1.

4.8. Aggrieved, Respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No. 29621/2016

before the High Court, seeking restoration of possession of the

Subject Land along with all structures and machinery.

Respondent No.1 also claimed monthly compensation of INR

Page 5 of 20

5,00,000 from December, 2016 onwards, alleging pecuniary loss

on account of being deprived of the use of its industrial property.

4.9. The High Court allowed the petition vide judgment dated

24.04.2017 and reasoned that:

i) This Court's direction in Kedar Nath Yadav (supra) applied

to all landowners without distinction between ‘cultivators’

and ‘business entities’, and Respondent No.1 could not be

excluded merely for being a corporate house; and

ii) The intact structures should be returned with the Subject

Land as ‘land’ under the 1894 Act included attached

structures.

4.10.The High Court accordingly directed the District Magistrate,

Hooghly to deliver possession within six weeks while declining

the prayer seeking compensation for delay.

4.11.The appeal against the afore-cited decision was dismissed by the

Division Bench vide the Impugned Judgment, holding that the

expression “landowners/cultivators” in Kedar Nath Yadav

(supra) ought to be construed widely to include all persons

whose lands were acquired, whether they used it for industrial or

Page 6 of 20

cultivation purposes, with no separate class created while

granting restoration.

4.12.Being aggrieved, the Appellants have preferred the instant

appeal. It may be noted that this Court, vide order dated

04.02.2019, granted an interim stay on the operation of the

Impugned Judgment, which continues to operate till date.

B. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

5. Mr. Harin P Rawal and Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the Appellants, strenuously argued that

the High Court committed a grave error in extending restoration

to Respondent No.1. It was contended that this Court's decision

in Kedar Nath Yadav (supra) was designed with specific

protective intent for vulnerable agricultural communities who

lacked resources to challenge governmental action. Respondent

No.1, operating as an industrial manufacturing concern with

substantial assets, fell entirely outside this protective framework

and could not invoke the same judicial safeguards extended to

disadvantaged segments of the society.

6. It was further highlighted that Respondent No.1 raised no

grievance against the acquisition of Subject Land before or after

the award had been passed by the LAC. Learned Senior Counsel

Page 7 of 20

pointed out that the acquisition attained finality in 2006 and

was first questioned by Respondent No.1 only in 2016, after this

Court's judgment in Kedar Nath Yadav (supra).

7. Our attention was also drawn to Respondent No.1's voluntary

acceptance of INR 14,54,75,744 as compensation without

demur, and it was contended that the same constitutes a clear

acquiescence to the acquisition process. Learned Senior Counsel

submitted that this conduct, combined with the principle of

estoppel, precluded any afterthought claim for restoration of

property for which full consideration had already been received

and retained. It was emphasized that permitting such claims

would open the floodgates for numerous commercial entities

seeking similar relief, thereby transforming a narrowly tailored

remedy into a general relief scheme with catastrophic fiscal

implications for the Appellants.

C. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.1

8. Per Contra, Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1, vehemently opposed the

instant appeal by challenging the Appellants’ interpretation of

Kedar Nath Yadav (supra). He asserted that the judgment

contained no artificial distinction between different categories of

Page 8 of 20

landowners, with the terminology “landowners/cultivators”

encompassing every person whose land was subjected to the

procedurally flawed acquisition. Learned Senior Counsel

emphasized that the original notifications under Section 4 of the

1894 Act addressed all affected persons uniformly as “owners of

land,” offering identical packages without regard to their

agricultural or commercial status.

9. It was further contended that Respondent No.1 was a bona fide

manufacturing enterprise that had proactively filed

comprehensive objections under Section 5-A accompanied by

detailed inventories of assets, which had been summarily

rejected without proper consideration. Drawing reference to the

compensation structure where INR 9,08,00,000 was specifically

allocated for structures, it was argued that this demonstrated

governmental recognition of structural entitlement. Learned

Senior Counsel, thus, urged that the appeal represents an

attempt to deny legitimate dues through selective application of

binding precedent and accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of

the instant appeal.

D. ANALYSIS

10. Having heard learned senior counsel for the parties and after

perusal of the material on record, we are of the considered view

Page 9 of 20

that the short question that falls for our consideration is:

whether this Court's ruling in Kedar Nath Yadav (supra), which

directed restoration of acquired land to original

landowners/cultivators, extends to Respondent No.1 as well?

11. That being said, our determination of this question necessitates

the analysis on following counts:

i) The intended scope and beneficiaries of this Court's decision

in Kedar Nath Yadav (supra) and whether Respondent No.1

also falls within that ambit;

ii) The procedural principles governing the applicability of

judicial orders quashing acquisition proceedings to parties

who did not participate in the original litigation; and

iii) The legal consequences of long delay in questioning the

acquisition and acceptance of compensation without demur.

12. Turning to the first aspect, this Court's judgment in Kedar Nath

Yadav (supra) arose from a contentious acquisition initiative

that sparked widespread resistance and prolonged litigation

challenging the State's exercise of its power. The Court’s ultimate

determination to quash the acquisition and direct restoration

was predicated upon systematic procedural failures under

Page 10 of 20

Section 5-A of the 1894 Act. However, its approach in fashioning

this remedy was informed by considerations that extended

beyond procedural compliance alone.

13. Crucially, the remedial framework in Kedar Nath Yadav (supra)

was anchored in its recognition that the acquisition

disproportionately affected vulnerable communities lacking

financial resources and institutional access to challenge

governmental action. This determination stemmed from an

understanding that certain segments of society remain

disadvantaged in asserting their rights against the State. In para

63, this Court specifically observed:

63. In this day and age of fast paced development,

it is completely understandable for the state

government to want to acquire lands to set up

industrial units. What, however, cannot be lost

sight of is the fact that when the brunt of this

‘development’ is borne by the weakest sections

of the society, more so, poor agricultural

workers who have no means of raising a voice

against the action of the mighty state

government, as is the case in the instant fact

situation, it is the onerous duty of the state

Government to ensure that the mandatory

procedure laid down under the L.A. Act and

the Rules framed there under are followed

scrupulously otherwise the acquisition

proceedings will be rendered void ab initio in

law. Compliance with the provisions of the L.A. Act

cannot be treated as an empty formality by the

State Government, as that would be akin to

handing over the eminent domain power of State to

the executive, which cannot be permitted in a

Page 11 of 20

democratic country which is required to be

governed by the rule of law. …….”

 [Emphasis Supplied]

14. This Court's identification of “poor agricultural workers” as the

“weakest sections of society” established the jurisdictional

boundary of relief. Subsistence farmers dependent entirely on

inherited land face destitution when acquisition bypasses

mandatory safeguards—they possess no alternative livelihood,

lack resources to navigate administrative procedures or afford

prolonged litigation. The remedy provided by this Court

addressed this structural vulnerability.

15. Notably, the aforesaid classification carries decisive legal

significance. By grounding relief in structural incapacity rather

than extending automatic restoration to all affected parties, this

Court prevented undermining finality in land acquisition

proceedings while ensuring protection for the genuinely

defenceless. Extraordinary judicial intervention is warranted

when systemic barriers prevent certain classes from accessing

ordinary remedies, not when parties possess adequate means to

vindicate their rights. Relief conceived to prevent impoverishment

among the disadvantaged cannot extend to commercial

enterprises with financial capacity and institutional

sophistication.

Page 12 of 20

16. Against this backdrop, we have no hesitation in holding that

Respondent No.1 falls squarely outside the protective framework

envisaged by this Court. Unlike marginal farmers facing potential

destitution from loss of their sole livelihood, Respondent No. 1

operated a 60,000 square feet manufacturing facility employing

over 100 workers since 2003, having purchased and converted

agricultural land for commercial purposes.

17. The origin of the litigation further reinforces this distinction, as

the proceedings before the High Court commenced through a PIL

specifically initiated to prevent poor farmers from losing their

fertile agricultural land. The express objective of PIL was to

safeguard cultivators whose livelihoods faced extinction through

large-scale acquisition. Extending such relief to industrial

entities like Respondent No.1 would thus defeat the remedy's

foundational intent.

18. In view of the above analysis, we hold that the reasoning in

Kedar Nath Yadav (supra) does not enure to the benefit of

Respondent No.1. The restoration remedy was conceived for

disadvantaged farming communities, not as general restitution

for all affected parties.

Page 13 of 20

19. Beyond this distinction, we are constrained to add that even the

established procedural principles preclude Respondent No.1’s

claim. Orders quashing acquisition proceedings may operate

either in personam or in rem. Where the Court quashes

acquisition on grounds personal to individual objectors—such as

vitiated consideration of their specific objections under Section

5-A—the relief operates in personam and benefits only those

parties who contested the matter before judicial forums. On the

other hand, where the Court declares the entire process void ab

initio on grounds going to the root of acquisition—the relief

operates in rem. It is thus clear that the benefits of quashing do

not accrue to persons who were not parties unless the Court has

struck down the entire acquisition on fundamental grounds

applicable to all.2

20. It may be apposite to observe here that the objections under

Section 5-A raise issues personal to each landowner. Upon

rejection of such objections, the aggrieved party must approach

judicial forums to challenge the same and mere filing of

objections does not exhaust remedies available in law. To further

simplify, claimants who do not file objections or pursue judicial

challenge cannot contend that Section 5-A inquiry is vitiated, nor

2 Abhey Ram v. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 421, para 9-12.

Page 14 of 20

can they seek quashing of Section 6 declaration on that ground.3

It is trite law that in the event objections are not pursued

through litigation, the notification becomes conclusive proof of

waiver.

21. Applying these principles, the cause of cultivators and farmers

affected by the Singur Project was espoused before the High

Court, inter-alia, on grounds that it disproportionately affected

vulnerable agricultural communities and fertile land, with

procedural violations including vitiated Section 5-A inquiry and

non-application of mind by authorities. Respondent No.1 filed

objections under Section 5-A on 21.08.2006, which were

rejected. Despite possessing financial resources and institutional

access, it never pursued the appellate remedies available under

the 1894 Act. It accepted the entire compensation amount of

INR 14,54,75,744 without protest and remained passive while

cultivators pursued litigation for years. Having chosen not to

contest the acquisition through available statutory mechanisms,

Respondent No.1 now seeks the same relief that was granted to

disadvantaged communities through PIL—a classic free-rider

problem that judicial remedies cannot encourage.

3 Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban, (2000) 7 SCC 296, para 42-47.

Page 15 of 20

22. Turning to the third aspect, the acquisition attained finality qua

Respondent No.1 through its own inaction. Respondent No.1

remained silent for an entire decade from 2006 to 2016, making

no attempt to challenge the acquisition despite the award being

passed on 25.09.2006. Once the proceedings conclude in the

award and possession is taken without challenge, the Court

would not entertain any belated grievance from the interested

person.4

 In stark contrast, affected farmers brought their plight

before the High Court through PIL in November, 2006 itself—

challenging procedural violations at the earliest opportunity.

Hence, Respondent No.1 cannot now seek parity and question

what had been conclusively settled.

23. Insofar as reference to the PIL jurisdiction in Kedar Nath Yadav

(supra) is concerned, we are afraid the same may not be

applicable to the facts of the instant case. We say so because PIL

enables representation of similarly situated vulnerable persons

who lack means to approach courts individually. When

cultivators challenged the Singur acquisition through PIL, all

farmers/cultivators across the acquisition were represented.

Having failed to pursue legal remedies when available,

Respondent No.1—a party possessing financial resources and

4 Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt.

Ltd., (1996) 11 SCC 501, para 19.

Page 16 of 20

institutional access to statutory remedies falls outside this

representative framework designed for disadvantaged

communities.

24. Additionally, the temporal dimension presents a further bar.

Nearly two decades have elapsed since the acquisition. Following

TATA Motors' withdrawal of the project in 2010, the acquired

land vested back with the Appellants free from all

encumbrances. Pursuant to the judgment in Kedar Nath Yadav

(supra), extensive survey operations were undertaken to restore

land to cultivators. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants

have informed this Court that structures originally on the

Subject Land were modified during these restoration efforts to

enable demarcation and distribution of individual holdings to

farmers. After nearly two decades and such modifications

undertaken to restore land to farmers, the relief cannot be

granted.

25. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Respondent No.1 cannot

claim the benefit of this Court's directions in Kedar Nath Yadav

(supra). Having accepted monetary settlement without challenge

and remained passive during litigation spanning several years, it

cannot now seek benefits from relief secured by others. The

confluence of its commercial status, nature of the relief, and the

Page 17 of 20

practical impossibility of restoration due to intervening

modifications collectively defeats this claim.

E. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS

26. Permitting industrial entities to claim restoration benefits from

litigation they chose not to pursue would establish an

undesirable precedent. Such an approach would incentivize

strategic inaction, encouraging parties to remain dormant during

protracted litigation only to emerge as claimants after favourable

outcomes are secured by others. This would undermine both the

targeted nature of remedial relief and the fundamental principle

that legal benefits flow from active pursuit of remedies, not

passive opportunism.

27. In view thereof, the instant appeal is allowed and the Impugned

Judgment dated 11.10.2018 passed by the Division Bench as

well as the judgment dated 24.04.2017 of the learned Single

Judge of the High Court are hereby set aside. Consequently, the

Writ Petition filed by Respondent No.1 insofar as it pertained to

challenge to the acquisition of Subject Land is hereby dismissed.

However, considering that Respondent No.1 has claimed to have

had standing structures on the Subject Land at the time of

acquisition, we issue the following directions:

Page 18 of 20

i) Respondent No.1 is permitted to remove any remaining

structures, plant, and machinery from the Subject Land

within three months from the date of this judgment, in the

presence of officials designated by the District Magistrate,

Hooghly; or

ii) Alternatively, Respondent No.1 may request the Appellants to

put the structures, machinery and other movable and

immovable articles belonging to it for public auction. In such

event, Respondent No.1 shall be entitled to the auction

proceeds after deducting expenses incurred on the auction

process. Respondent No.1 shall not then claim any

compensation from Appellants.

iii) The LAC shall calculate the compensation for structures

after deducting the salvage value of materials removed by

Respondent No.1 from the compensation already paid for

such structures. However, recovery of any excess payment

made to Respondent No.1 shall not be effected by the

Appellants.

iv) Since Respondent No.1 was granted possession of the

Subject Land pursuant to the Impugned Judgment which

has been set aside, the Appellants are directed to carry out

fresh demarcation to identify the precise boundaries of the

acquired area. Thereafter, the Appellants shall resume

possession of the Subject Land, subject to compliance with

the other directions.

v) The assessment exercise under clauses (ii), (iii) & (iv) shall

be completed within four months from the date of this

judgment.

Page 19 of 20

28. Ordered accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand

disposed of in the above terms.

 ………..........................J.

 (SURYA KANT)

 ………..........................J.

 (JOYMALYA BAGCHI)

NEW DELHI;

Dated: 13.10.2025

Page 20 of 20

Karur stampede - case - . Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Investigation — Transfer to CBI — Judicial Guidelines — When permissible — Extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances. Held, though there are no inflexible guidelines for directing a CBI investigation, such orders must not be passed as a matter of routine or merely because allegations are made against the local police. Such power can be exercised in exceptional cases where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigation, or where the incident has national ramifications, or where such an order is essential for enforcing fundamental rights. Reference: State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571, para 70 — followed. (Paras 30–32) B. Criminal Procedure — Fair Investigation — Right of Citizen — Duty of Court Fair investigation is part of the fundamental right to life and liberty under Art. 21. When impartiality or credibility of investigation is seriously doubted owing to premature public defence by police hierarchy, it becomes necessary to ensure an independent investigation to maintain public confidence in criminal justice system. (Paras 27–32) C. Constitution of India — Art. 32 & 226 — Exercise of jurisdiction — Self-imposed restraint High Courts, while exercising writ jurisdiction, must observe judicial discipline and institutional propriety. Entertaining writ petitions beyond the pleadings or without territorial jurisdiction, expanding the scope suo motu without orders of Chief Justice, or passing inconsistent orders vis-à-vis co-ordinate Benches, is impermissible. (Paras 17–21) D. High Court Practice and Procedure — Jurisdiction of Benches — Judicial Propriety Where the cause of action arises within territorial jurisdiction of Madurai Bench, a Single Judge of Principal Seat at Madras had no occasion to entertain a writ petition concerning the same incident (Karur stampede) without orders of the Chief Justice. Multiplicity of proceedings, suo motu enlargement of scope, and creation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) by Single Judge, despite pendency of similar matters before Division Bench, deprecated. (Paras 20–22) E. Public Interest Litigation — SOPs/Guidelines for Political Rallies — Proper forum Held, petitions seeking framing of Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for political rallies and crowd management concern the general public and should properly be treated as PILs before Division Bench. Writ Petition (Crl.) filed by a political party for permission to conduct rallies cannot be expanded to such issues by a Single Bench. (Paras 18–19, 24) F. Administrative Law — Enquiry Commission & SIT — CBI Investigation — Overlap of Powers Pending CBI investigation, the operation of SIT or State-appointed one-member Enquiry Commission is suspended. Full cooperation by State to CBI and Supervisory Committee directed. (Para 32–33) G. Human Rights — Right to Justice — Victims of Mass Casualty — Independent probe In cases involving large-scale loss of life and serious public concern, an independent probe by central agency under judicial supervision is warranted to restore public confidence and ensure justice to victims and their families. (Paras 25–32) Facts: Incident of Karur stampede occurred on 27.09.2025 during a political rally organized by Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) in Karur District, Tamil Nadu, leading to 41 deaths and over 100 injuries. FIR No. 855/2025 registered under relevant sections of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. State Government constituted a one-member Enquiry Commission headed by a retired High Court Judge. Multiple writ petitions were filed before Madras High Court — some at Madurai Bench seeking transfer of investigation to CBI and formulation of SOPs for political rallies, others before Principal Seat seeking similar reliefs. The Division Bench at Madurai dismissed CBI-transfer petitions, finding no flaw in local police investigation. However, the Single Judge at Principal Seat suo motu constituted a State SIT despite absence of pleadings or parties. Held: (Per J.K. Maheshwari & N.V. Anjaria, JJ.) High Court’s procedural irregularities: Entertaining writ petitions without territorial jurisdiction and enlarging scope suo motu contrary to coordinate Bench orders reflected lack of judicial propriety and multiplicity of proceedings. (Paras 17–22) Necessity for independent probe: Considering premature public statements by senior police officials exonerating subordinates and the political overtones of the tragedy, there existed reasonable apprehension of bias. Therefore, fair investigation by an independent agency was necessary to restore public faith. (Paras 27–32) Transfer of Investigation: Investigation of FIR No. 855/2025 relating to Karur stampede transferred to CBI. Director, CBI directed to appoint senior officer to take over investigation; all materials to be handed over by State SIT and Enquiry Commission. (Para 32) Supervisory Committee: A Three-Member Supervisory Committee constituted, headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi (Retd.), to monitor CBI investigation. Committee to include two senior IPS officers (not native to Tamil Nadu) chosen by the Hon’ble Judge. Scope and powers detailed in para 33. Expenses to be borne by State of Tamil Nadu. (Paras 33–34) Pending High Court matter: W.P. (Crl.) No. 884/2025 regarding SOP/guidelines for political rallies to be assigned by Chief Justice of Madras High Court to a Division Bench for further hearing. (Para 39) Nature of Order: Interim and prima facie; subject to further consideration upon filing of counter-affidavits. (Para 40) Final Directions (Para 32–40): Investigation of FIR No. 855/2025 transferred to CBI. CBI Director to appoint senior officer with supporting staff. State SIT and Enquiry Commission to hand over all materials to CBI. SIT and Enquiry Commission orders kept in abeyance/suspended. Tamil Nadu Government to cooperate fully and provide logistical support. Supervisory Committee under Justice Ajay Rastogi (Retd.) constituted to oversee CBI investigation. Committee to be assisted by two senior IPS officers (non-native Tamil Nadu cadre). Monthly progress reports to be submitted to Committee; investigation to conclude expeditiously. Registrar (Judicial) of Madras High Court to furnish explanation to Supreme Court regarding jurisdictional irregularities. W.P. (Crl.) No. 884/2025 to be placed before Division Bench by order of Chief Justice. Result: Investigation transferred to CBI under supervision of Justice Ajay Rastogi (Retd.) — Orders of SIT and Enquiry Commission suspended — High Court to explain procedural impropriety — Interim directions issued.

A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Investigation — Transfer to CBI — Judicial Guidelines

— When permissible — Extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances.

Held, though there are no inflexible guidelines for directing a CBI investigation, such orders must not be passed as a matter of routine or merely because allegations are made against the local police. Such power can be exercised in exceptional cases where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigation, or where the incident has national ramifications, or where such an order is essential for enforcing fundamental rights.

Reference: State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571, para 70 — followed.

(Paras 30–32)

B. Criminal Procedure — Fair Investigation — Right of Citizen — Duty of Court

Fair investigation is part of the fundamental right to life and liberty under Art. 21. When impartiality or credibility of investigation is seriously doubted owing to premature public defence by police hierarchy, it becomes necessary to ensure an independent investigation to maintain public confidence in criminal justice system. (Paras 27–32)

C. Constitution of India — Art. 32 & 226 — Exercise of jurisdiction — Self-imposed restraint

High Courts, while exercising writ jurisdiction, must observe judicial discipline and institutional propriety. Entertaining writ petitions beyond the pleadings or without territorial jurisdiction, expanding the scope suo motu without orders of Chief Justice, or passing inconsistent orders vis-à-vis co-ordinate Benches, is impermissible.

(Paras 17–21)

D. High Court Practice and Procedure — Jurisdiction of Benches — Judicial Propriety

Where the cause of action arises within territorial jurisdiction of Madurai Bench, a Single Judge of Principal Seat at Madras had no occasion to entertain a writ petition concerning the same incident (Karur stampede) without orders of the Chief Justice. Multiplicity of proceedings, suo motu enlargement of scope, and creation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) by Single Judge, despite pendency of similar matters before Division Bench, deprecated. (Paras 20–22)

E. Public Interest Litigation — SOPs/Guidelines for Political Rallies — Proper forum

Held, petitions seeking framing of Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for political rallies and crowd management concern the general public and should properly be treated as PILs before Division Bench. Writ Petition (Crl.) filed by a political party for permission to conduct rallies cannot be expanded to such issues by a Single Bench. (Paras 18–19, 24)

F. Administrative Law — Enquiry Commission & SIT — CBI Investigation — Overlap of Powers

Pending CBI investigation, the operation of SIT or State-appointed one-member Enquiry Commission is suspended. Full cooperation by State to CBI and Supervisory Committee directed. (Para 32–33)

G. Human Rights — Right to Justice — Victims of Mass Casualty — Independent probe

In cases involving large-scale loss of life and serious public concern, an independent probe by central agency under judicial supervision is warranted to restore public confidence and ensure justice to victims and their families. (Paras 25–32)

Facts:

Incident of Karur stampede occurred on 27.09.2025 during a political rally organized by Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) in Karur District, Tamil Nadu, leading to 41 deaths and over 100 injuries. FIR No. 855/2025 registered under relevant sections of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. State Government constituted a one-member Enquiry Commission headed by a retired High Court Judge.

Multiple writ petitions were filed before Madras High Court — some at Madurai Bench seeking transfer of investigation to CBI and formulation of SOPs for political rallies, others before Principal Seat seeking similar reliefs. The Division Bench at Madurai dismissed CBI-transfer petitions, finding no flaw in local police investigation. However, the Single Judge at Principal Seat suo motu constituted a State SIT despite absence of pleadings or parties.

Held:

(Per J.K. Maheshwari & N.V. Anjaria, JJ.)

High Court’s procedural irregularities:

Entertaining writ petitions without territorial jurisdiction and enlarging scope suo motu contrary to coordinate Bench orders reflected lack of judicial propriety and multiplicity of proceedings. (Paras 17–22)

Necessity for independent probe:

Considering premature public statements by senior police officials exonerating subordinates and the political overtones of the tragedy, there existed reasonable apprehension of bias. Therefore, fair investigation by an independent agency was necessary to restore public faith. (Paras 27–32)

Transfer of Investigation:

Investigation of FIR No. 855/2025 relating to Karur stampede transferred to CBI. Director, CBI directed to appoint senior officer to take over investigation; all materials to be handed over by State SIT and Enquiry Commission. (Para 32)

Supervisory Committee:

A Three-Member Supervisory Committee constituted, headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi (Retd.), to monitor CBI investigation. Committee to include two senior IPS officers (not native to Tamil Nadu) chosen by the Hon’ble Judge. Scope and powers detailed in para 33. Expenses to be borne by State of Tamil Nadu. (Paras 33–34)

Pending High Court matter:

W.P. (Crl.) No. 884/2025 regarding SOP/guidelines for political rallies to be assigned by Chief Justice of Madras High Court to a Division Bench for further hearing. (Para 39)

Nature of Order:

Interim and prima facie; subject to further consideration upon filing of counter-affidavits. (Para 40)

Final Directions (Para 32–40):

Investigation of FIR No. 855/2025 transferred to CBI.

CBI Director to appoint senior officer with supporting staff.

State SIT and Enquiry Commission to hand over all materials to CBI.

SIT and Enquiry Commission orders kept in abeyance/suspended.

Tamil Nadu Government to cooperate fully and provide logistical support.

Supervisory Committee under Justice Ajay Rastogi (Retd.) constituted to oversee CBI investigation.

Committee to be assisted by two senior IPS officers (non-native Tamil Nadu cadre).

Monthly progress reports to be submitted to Committee; investigation to conclude expeditiously.

Registrar (Judicial) of Madras High Court to furnish explanation to Supreme Court regarding jurisdictional irregularities.

W.P. (Crl.) No. 884/2025 to be placed before Division Bench by order of Chief Justice.

Held that:

Investigation transferred to CBI under supervision of Justice Ajay Rastogi (Retd.) — Orders of SIT and Enquiry Commission suspended — High Court to explain procedural impropriety — Interim directions issued.

2025 INSC 1224 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL/CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO(S). OF 2025

[Diary No. 58048/2025]

TAMILAGA VETTRI KAZHAGAM PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

P.H. DINESH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO(S). OF 2025

[Diary No. 57588/2025]

PANNEERSELVAM PITCHAIMUTHU PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

WRIT PETITION (CRL) NO(S). 412 OF 2025

S PRABAKARAN PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

WRIT PETITION (CRL) NO(S). 413 OF 2025

SELVARAJ P PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

2

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO(S). 16081 OF 2025

G S MANI PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. In the present set of matters, Special Leave Petition Diary No.

58048 of 2025 has been filed against the order of the learned Single

Judge of the Madras High Court dated 3.10.2025 passed in Writ

Petition Criminal No. 1000 of 2025, challenging the direction for

formation of a Special Investigation Team (hereinafter referred to as

“SIT”).

2. Special Leave Petition Diary No. 57588 of 2025 has been filed

challenging the order dated 03.10.2025 in WP(MD) No. 27556 of 2025

passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai

Bench, whereby the batch of writ petitions filed by some publicspirited citizens seeking directions to transfer the investigation to the

Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter “CBI”) were dismissed.

Petitioner in this case is a father whose son died in the unfortunate

incident and was not a party before the High Court, he has sought 

3

permission to file the instant special leave petition.

3. Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 16081 of 2025 has been

filed against the judgment dated 03.10.2025 passed by the division

bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai bench in WP(MD) No. 27571

of 2025, rejecting the prayer for transfer of investigation to the CBI.

The petitioner in the said case was not a victim / relative of victim of

the incident, but is a public-spirited citizen.

4. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 412 of 2025 under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner whose sister and

her fiancé have died in the incident; while making several allegations,

the petitioner has prayed for CBI investigation. The Writ Petition

(Criminal) No. 413 of 2025 under Article 32 of the Constitution of

India has been filed by the petitioner whose wife has died in the

incident, seeking similar prayer.

5. After perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case, we issue

notice in all the five cases returnable in eight weeks.

6. Heard on the question of grant of interim relief.

7. All the above cases relate to an unfortunate incident of stampede 

4

/ crowd crush which occurred on 27.09.2025 at about 7.30 P.M. in

Velusamypuram, Karur District, Tamil Nadu (hereinafter referred to as

the “Karur stampede”).

8. The Karur stampede resulted in loss of 41 innocent lives and

causing injuries to more than 100 persons during a political rally

organized at Velusamypuram in Karur District, Tamil Nadu by the

Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam, a regional political party (hereinafter

referred to as “TVK”). Purported permission to conduct the said rally

as requested by the TVK was granted by the Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Karur Town Sub-Division vide letter dated 26.09.2025. The

TVK was headed by Thiru Vijay (a renowned Tamil actor) who was set

to visit the locality for a public meeting. In order to attend the said

rally and meeting, huge crowd gathered at the spot to see him.

9. In consequence, on the fateful day of the rally and meeting,

Karur stampede took place. In the aftermath of the unfortunate

incident, FIR No. 855/2025 was registered on 27.09.2025 in Police

Station Karur Town under Sections 105, 110, 125B, 223 of the

Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNS”) read

with Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of

Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “TNPP Act”). 

5

The investigation was initiated by the police, and immediately on the

same date, i.e. 27.09.2025, by means of a ‘press release’ Hon’ble The

Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu announced the formation of a onemember Enquiry Commission headed by a retired High Court Judge,

Ms. Justice Aruna Jagadeeshan.

10. While the things stood as thus in motion, on 30.09.2025 Writ

Petition (MD) Nos. 27556, 27563 and 27571 of 2025 were filed before

the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The prayers made in

the respective Writ Petitions are quoted hereunder:

WP(MD) No. 27556/2025:

“A. To direct the 3 and 4 respondents to order the 8

respondent to conduct Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

enquiry to find the truth behind at least 39 people died in a

stampede at a Tamil Nadu Karur District Tamilaga Vettri

Kazhagam (TVK) party rally. More than 80 were injured on

Saturday (September 27, 2025)

B. To pay Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) as

compensation to find the truth behind at least 39 people

died in a stampede at a Tamil Nadu Karur District

Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) Party rally. More than 80

were injured on Saturday (September 27, 2025)

C. To pay Rs. 10 lakh compensation to those injured in

the stampede and undergoing treatment in hospitals

(September, 27, 2025).

D. By considering the petitioner’s representation dated

28.09.2025 and pass such furtheror other orders as this

Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the

case.

WP(MD) No. 27563/2025:

6

To issue a Writ of mandamus, to direct the 1st

respondent in appointing the 2nd respondent to

investigate, enquire and punish in the Road Show

meet held by the TamizhagaVetriKhazagam actor

turned Politician Vijay at Velusamypuram, Karur

District on 26th September, 2025.

WP(MD) No. 27571/2025:

To issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st to 5th

Respondents to transfer the investigation in FIR in

Crime No. 855 of 2025 registered at Karur Town

Police Station concerning the stampede death of 41

persons in the public meeting of Actor Vijay at Karur

on 27.09.2025 to 7th and 8th Respondents Central

Bureau of Investigation CBI or a Special Investigation

Team (SIT) headed by a retired/sitting Judges of the

Honble Supreme Court of India.”

11. Writ Petition (MD) Nos. 27532, 27540, 27541 and 27554 of 2025

have also been filed on the same date, i.e. 30.09.2025 before the

Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The prayers made in the

respective Writ Petitions are quoted hereunder:

WP(MD) No. 27532/2025:

“To issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to

draft and implement necessary and appropriate safety

protocols and Standard Operating Procedures for all public

gatherings, rallies and meetings to be conducted by and

political party or such other organisation, which would

draw public crowd.

WP(MD) No. 27540/2025:

To issue a Writ of mandamus, directing the Respondents 1

to 4 to frame and notify appropriate rules, regulations,

standard operating procedure (SOP’s) for regulating

political rallies, roadshows, conferences and other mass

gatherings in Tamil Nadu by adopting the crowd

management guidelines issued by the NDMA (National

Disaster Management Authority), NIDM (National Institute 

7

for Disaster Management) and BPRD (Bureau for Police

Research and Development), thereby mandating the

imposition of stringent regulations which are legally

enforceable on the organizers of such rally in order to

ensure adequate safety and precautionary measures, with

appropriate guidelines for the collection of safety deposits,

indemnity bonds, enrolment of group insurance scheme

from such organizers/political parties who intend to

organize such rallies. The congregations to ensure

compensation for victims who may suffer irreparable injury

and loss of life in the event of any untoward incidents that

may happen, by considering the petitioner’s representation

dated 29.09.2025 within a time limit that may be fixed by

this Court.

WP(MD) No. 27541/2025:

To issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1

to 5 not to accord permission to 6th respondent party to

conduct meeting within the Tirunelveli District, until the

completion inquiry, based on the petitioner’s representation

dated 29.09.2025.

WP(MD) No. 27554/2025:

To issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent

No.1 to 5 to frame Comprehensive Guidelines or Rules for

Crowd control and Mass Gathering Management in Tamil

Nadu and to pass such other or further orders as this

Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the

circumstances of this case and thus render justice.”

12. From the above, it can be gathered that various writ petitions

were filed before the Madurai Bench of the High Court of Madras

because Karur town falls within the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench

as prayed in those cases, it was cognizant of the Karur stampede, the

prayer for formulating the Standard Operating Procedure (hereinafter

referred to as “SOP”) along with guidelines for political rallies, road

shows, public meetings, etc. and also of the prayer seeking CBI

investigation in the matter was also prayed. 

8

13. During the course of hearing, it has been brought to the notice of

this Court that earlier, WP Crl. No. 884 of 2025 was filed on 16.9.2025

before the Principal Bench of the Madras High Court by the TVK

seeking the following relief:

“Directing the Respondent to forthwith instruct all

subordinate police officials throughout the state of Tamil

Nadu to consider and grant necessary permissions to the

petitioner party for conducting political campaigns led by

its party leader, Mr. Vijay Across the state of Tamil Nadu

between 20.09.2025 to 20.12.2025 on the basis of the

petitioners political party representation dated 09.09.2025

by the consideration of the Representation of the petitioner

dated 15.09.2025 in a fair, uniform and non -

discriminatory manner, within a time frame fixed by this

Hon'ble Court and in accordance with law.”

14. Surprisingly, the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court

Main Seat, without adverting to the prayer made in the WP Crl. No.

884 of 2025, vide interim order dated 18.09.2025, directed that the

State Government to come up with the guidelines with regards to

collection of security deposit from the political parties which intend to

have huge public meetings, gatherings or demonstrations. The Court

vide subsequent order dated 24.09.2025 suo moto directed to join the

Chief Secretary and the Home Secretary of Govt. of Tamil Nadu as

parties. On the said date, the Court disapproved the affidavit dated

23.09.2025 filed by the State inter-alia stating that for preparing the 

9

guidelines for collection of security deposit, several departments were

required to be kept on board which may take some time, however, it

was stated that the Government is addressing the issue. The report

regarding formulation of the guidelines was also sought for by the

Court while posting the matter on 16.10.2025.

15. While the said petition was pending, the Karur stampede took

place and one WP Crl. No. 1000 of 2025 was also filed on 30.09.2025

before the Main Seat of the Madras High Court seeking the following

relief :-

“To issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to

consider the representation dated 30.09.2025 submitted

by the petitioner and consequently framed guidelines in the

nature of SOP for the conducting of road show immediately

and thus render justice.”

16. In the said case, limited relief sought was relating to formation of

the SOP and to consider the representation of the petitioner. It is not

out of place that factum of dismissal of Writ Petitions seeking

investigation by the CBCID and for payment of compensation by the

Division Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench was

brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge by the learned

Additional Advocate General as it appears from paragraph 3 of the

impugned order. However, the Court in para 19 took cognizance of 

10

the order dated 03.10.2025 passed in WP (MD) No. 27532 of 2025 and

batch with respect to an undertaking given by the State for not

granting permission for rallies on State Highways/National Highways

till formation of SOP. In consequence thereof the learned Single Judge

disposed of the WP Crl. 1000/2025 in terms of the impugned order.

17. After perusal of pleadings and reliefs, learned Single Judge has

suo moto decided to enlarge the scope of the writ petition, stating

extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary measures, even in

absence of pleadings and prayer for constitution of SIT. Learned Single

Judge made some observations about the Karur stampede. In the writ

petition, the TVK and its members were not made party and without

joining the necessary parties and affording opportunity, the order

impugned has been passed. In result, as per said order, the Court

took suo moto cognizance and recorded the finding of non-satisfaction

with respect to progress or independence of the investigation and

directed for the formation of SIT consisting of the officers of the State.

The judgement is completely silent about how learned Single Judge

arrived at such a conclusion and what material was perused by the

Court. The said order mainly refers the submissions made by the Ld.

Additional Advocate General.

11

18. It is not out of place to observe that the orders passed in the

various writ petitions except Writ Petition No. 884 of 2025 were dated

03.10.2025. The order of the Division Bench of the Madras High

Court, Madurai Bench in WP (MD) No. 27532 of 2025 and batch,

taking cognizance of the aforesaid order, made the observation that

learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court at Chennai is seized of

the matter relating to the formation of SOP in WP Crl. No. 884 of 2025,

therefore, refused to consider the prayer for formation of SOP. In our

view, where the prayer to form SOP / Guidelines for public rallies

affecting general public at large was being examined, however, such

petition ought to be dealt with by the Division Bench, registering as

public interest litigation in right earnest, and not to be dealt with by a

Single Bench.

19. It is also strange that in the above two Writ Petition Criminal

Nos. 884 and 1000 of 2025, learned Single Judges of the Main Seat of

the Madras High Court entertained the writ petition for the prayers

which were not made in the writ petitions, and expanded the scope

without any foundation in pleadings. It is also not forthcoming as to

what was the need to increase the multiplicity of proceedings with

respect to the same cause, subject matter and seeking similar prayers. 

12

In both cases, the learned Single Judge proceeded to take suo moto

cognizance of the issues beyond the prayer and formed the SIT in WP

Crl. No. 1000 of 2025, further asking the formation of the guidelines /

SOP.

20. Pertinently, the Karur stampede falls within the jurisdiction of

the Madurai Bench where, writ petitions, seeking investigation by the

CBI and also formation of SIT were filed and heard by a Division

Bench on the same date. Such being the case, there was no occasion

for the learned Single Judge of the Main Seat of the Madras High

Court to entertain WP Crl. No. 1000 of 2025, without orders of the

Chief Justice of the High Court in that regard. On a query being put,

how WP Crl. No. 1000 of 2025 was filed, referring the Karur

stampede, before the Main Seat of the Madras High Court, in reply it

was submitted that WP Crl. No. 884 of 2025 for the formation of

SOP/guidelines before the Main Seat was pending, therefore, the Main

Seat may have entertained the aforementioned WP for the same relief.

Be that as it may, the subsequent petition in WP Crl. No. 1000 of 2025

was filed for formation of the SOP / Guidelines for which a petition

was already pending as stated before us. Therefore, learned Single

Judge did not have any occasion to entertain the said writ petition and 

13

it ought to have dismissed the petition. But by taking suo moto

cognizance even during pendency of writ petitions before the Madurai

bench within whose jurisdiction the incident took place and also

ignoring that Hon’ble the Chief Minister of the State has already

constituted an Enquiry Commission comprising of a retired Judge of

the High Court, how far the order of the learned Single Judge was

correct in taking suo moto cognizance and creating a SIT, is an issue.

21. It is not understandable to us, particularly when in WP (MD) Nos.

27556, 27563 and 27571 of 2025 prayers were made for transfer of

investigation to CBI and/or formation of SIT, and the Division Bench

at Madurai was cognizant of the same and said that the investigation

is at a nascent stage and no flaw in the police investigation has been

brought. In stark contradiction, the learned Single Judge, while

dealing with the matter, of constituting a SIT, suo moto, without

referring any documents or assigning any reasons recorded

dissatisfaction with the progress and independence of the

investigation. Thus, from the above, it is clear that the Division Bench

at Madurai denied the CBI investigation, holding that the investigation

by the local police is not flawed, while the learned Single Judge at the

Main Seat, dissatisfied with the police investigation, directed for 

14

constitution of SIT. Such recourse prima facie indicates the lack of

sensitivity and propriety to deal with such a matter creating

multiplicity of proceedings, for the reasons best known to the Hon’ble

Judges.

22. It is to be noted that in Writ Petition (MD) Nos. 27532, 27540,

27541 and 27554 of 2025 prayer for safety protocols and SOP for all

public gathering, rallies and meetings by the political party along with

other ancillary issues were raised with specific prayers as referred

above, but those have been closed due to pendency of WP Crl. No. 884

of 2025 and in terms of the undertaking of the Additional Advocate

General. It is true that those orders have not been assailed in the

present batch of matters, but the fact remains that the prayer asking

for SOP because of the Karur stampede was not entertained in those

cases by the Division Bench merely because WP Crl. 884 of 2025 was

pending, though it was not a public interest litigation and no

foundation has been set out in the pleadings of the said case. In fact,

the said issue is under consideration in terms of the order of the Court

which has expanded the scope of the Writ Petition. In the opinion of

this Court, dismissal of the said batch of Writ Petitions by the Division

Bench in which specific pleadings were set out asking the relief of 

15

formation of SOP due to the pendency of WP Crl. 884 of 2025 cannot

be appreciated to be in right earnest. At the same time, as per the

allegations raised with respect to impartiality and independence of the

investigation, prima facie, the prayer for CBI investigation has not

been duly dealt with in right perspective after hearing learned counsel

for the parties at length.

23. All the above observations are prima facie and are interim in

nature and subject to filing of the counter affidavit by the

Respondents.

24. The above is a matter of concern and it is required to be

explained by the High Court that a writ petition praying for formation

of SOP / Guidelines for the rallies of political parties and roadshows,

how far it would fall within the jurisdiction of Writ Petition (Criminal).

It shall also be explained that in WP Crl. No. 884 of 2025 which was

filed for different relief but as per the orders of the High Court it was

kept pending for formation of the SOP/guidelines, why the said matter

was not treated as Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and whether it will

be listed before the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench. An

explanation in that regard be furnished by the Registrar (Judicial) of 

16

the High Court bringing this order in the knowledge of Hon’ble the

Chief Justice of the High Court.

25. In addition to the nature of the orders passed by the High Court

as discussed, the other side of the Karur stampede is the cruel fact of

death of 41 people and injury caused to more than 100 people in the

incident at Velusamypuram within Karur district.

26. The fact remains that TVK, a regional political party headed by

Thiru Vijay, a famous film actor, applied to the police authorities and

sought permission to organize several public rallies and meetings all

across the State. One such permission was granted by the police

authorities on 26.09.2025. During the rally, the Karur stampede took

place on 27.09.2025. As such, at one hand, the number of deaths and

injuries caused, has stirred public sentiment and shook the

conscience of people across the nation. On the other hand, it is the

ruling dispensation who have control over the immense machinery of

the State, against whom allegations have been brought on affidavit for

not having discharged their functions properly. The allegations have

been made by the relatives of victims and public-spirited persons

seeking transfer of investigation into the matter to the CBI while in the 

17

Special Leave Petition filed by the TVK prayer is made to hold an

investigation under supervision of any former Judge of this Court. In

the two writ petitions, referring various documents and materials, CBI

investigation has been prayed. On the first date of hearing and prior to

filing the counter affidavit by Respondents, we must refrain from

making any comments, therefore, those allegations are left for

adjudication on merits at later stage.

27. As per the pleadings and allegations as alleged, primarily it

appears that due to not taking due steps and inaction of the police

personnel the Karur stampede took place, while on the other hand

the State machinery has not accepted those allegations. The top

officials of the Police Department have taken to press conferences to

abjure the fault of the sub-ordinate officials and have taken a robust

defense that their officers were prompt in taking requisite action. In

the said sequel, it cannot be denied that the permission was granted

by the police for holding a political rally by the TVK on a connecting

route to a National Highway while in January, 2025 permission sought

by a different political party was refused.

28. It is said that even after granting such permission, necessary 

18

steps for handling the public gathering were not taken. It is urged

before us that if investigation would be carried out by the police

personnel whose top officials have already come out before the media,

making a statement that their sub-ordinate officers have taken

adequate steps and are not at fault, how far such an investigation

would be fair. Prima facie, this fact in itself creates a doubt in the

minds of the general public about the independence and impartiality

of the investigation.

29. In the said situation, caught in the doldrums are the families of

the deceased, injured victims and kith and kin of those who lost their

lives in this tragedy. For them, the political tussle between the two

sides is of little solace. All they are asking is for an unbiased,

independent and impartial investigation in their pursuit of justice.

They have knocked the doors of the High Court as well as of this Court

along with the public – spirited persons, making a prayer for

unbiased, uninfluenced investigation by a central agency.

30. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the parties placed

reliance on various judgments, however, at this stage, we are not

referring all those and appreciating in detail. At the same time, it is 

19

required to be seen, when can investigation through CBI, as prayed,

be directed by the High Court or by this Court. In this regard, we can

profitably refer the judgment of this Court in the case of State of W.B.

vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010) 3 SCC

517 wherein para 70, this Court observed as thus:

70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to

emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles

32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order,

the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed

limitations on the exercise of these constitutional powers.

The very plenitude of the power under the said articles

requires great caution in its exercise. Insofar as the

question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct

investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible

guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such

power should be exercised but time and again it has been

reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a

matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled

some allegations against the local police. This

extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly,

cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes

necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in

investigations or where the incident may have national

and international ramifications or where such an order

may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing

the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded

with a large number of cases and with limited resources,

may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious

cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose

with unsatisfactory investigations.

31. After perusal it can safely be said that there are no inflexible

guidelines to decide whether or not such power should be exercised.

The CBI investigation ought not to be directed in a routine manner or

where a party has levelled some allegations against local police. Such 

20

powers can be exercised cautiously in exceptional situation where it

becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in

investigation or where the incident may have national and

international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary

for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. In the

facts of this case, the incident of Karur stampede has definitely left an

imprint in the minds of the citizens throughout the country, wherein

41 persons died in a stampede and more than 100 were injured, it has

wide ramifications in respect of the life of the citizens and in this

context enforcing the fundamental rights of the families who lost their

kith and kin is of utmost importance. Therefore, looking to the

political undertone of the case and the fact that without having regard

to the gravity of the incident, the comments which have been made

before the media by the top officers of the Police Department, may

create doubt in the minds of the citizenry on impartiality and fair

investigation. The faith and trust of the general public on the process

of investigation must be restored in the criminal justice system, and

one way to instill such trust is by ensuring that the investigation in

the present case is completely impartial, independent and unbiased.

32. Looking to the fact that the issue involved certainly has a bearing 

21

on the fundamental rights of the citizens and the incident which has

shaken the national conscience, deserves fair and impartial

investigation. As such, by way of interim measure, direction deserves

to be issued to handover the investigation to the CBI which would lead

to fair administration of justice. There cannot be any doubt that fair

investigation is the right of a citizen. Therefore, in view of the

foregoing, the following interim directions are issued:

(i) The investigation with respect to FIR No. 855/2025

registered on 27.09.2025 in the Karur Town PS is

hereby transferred to the CBI.

(ii) The Director, CBI shall forthwith appoint a senior

officer for taking over the investigation and appoint

some other officers for assistance of the said officer.

(iii) The Superintendent of Police and SHO of the Karur

Town PS as well as the SIT set up pursuant to the

order of the learned Single Judge and the Enquiry

Commission set-up by Hon’ble the Chief Minister, shall

immediately hand over the FIR and other relevant

papers, evidence – digital or otherwise collected till now

for further investigation to the officers of the CBI.

22

(iv) In view of transferring the investigation to the CBI, the

direction for appointment of SIT or one-man enquiry

commission shall remain suspended.

(v) State of Tamil Nadu is directed to extend full cooperation to the officers of the CBI in the investigation

as directed and if necessary, shall provide requisite

logistical support to them.

33. In the facts of the case and the prayer as made, in order to allay

the concerns of all parties, in the pursuit of independence and

impartiality of the investigation, we propose to set up a three-member

Supervisory Committee (the “Committee”) headed by a former Judge

of this Court. We have requested Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

(Retd.) who has agreed to head the said Committee. We further request

him to choose two Senior Indian Police Service (IPS) officers not below

the rank of Inspector General of Police, who may be of Tamil Nadu

cadre but shall not be a native of Tamil Nadu, as per the choice of the

Hon’ble former Judge. The scope and mandate of the Committee so

formed shall be as follows:

(i) The Committee shall monitor the investigation

transferred to the CBI and is at liberty to issue proper 

23

directions for the areas in which the investigation is

required to be carried out;

(ii) It shall monitor the investigation carried out by the

CBI as directed;

(iii) The Committee shall have the liberty to review the

evidence collected by the CBI from time to time and

supervise the investigation to ensure that it reaches its

logical conclusion;

(iv) The Committee may undertake an inquiry into any

matter ancillary / incidental to the Karur stampede

which might be necessary to ensure fair, transparent

and independent investigation into the matter as it

deems fit.

(v) The Committee shall devise its own procedure as per

the directions of the Hon’ble former Judge.

34. Additionally, it is made clear that Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi (Retd.)

may fix emoluments payable to him as well as any incidental expenses

which might arise, including but not limited to perks / facilities,

transportation, logistics, secretarial expenses, which shall be borne by

the State of Tamil Nadu, making all necessary payments. The State of 

24

Tamil Nadu shall appoint a senior officer as the ‘Nodal Officer’ to

facilitate the communication between the Committee, the CBI and the

State.

35. In case an order of this Court is necessary at any stage for the

smooth functioning of the Committee or the investigation by the CBI,

liberty is granted to move an application in that regard before this

Court.

36. A soft copy of this order, the record of proceedings and pleadings

of these cases, be transmitted to Hon’ble Justice Ajay Rastogi (Retd.)

and the Director, CBI through the office of the learned Solicitor

General forthwith.

37. Considering the ramifications of the incident and its gravity, we

request the Chairman of the Committee to immediately organize its

first meeting after taking over of the charge of the investigation by the

CBI.

38. The officers of the CBI are directed to submit monthly progress

report of investigation to the Committee which may be placed for

consideration before this Court as and when required. We further 

25

request that the investigation may be completed as expeditiously as

possible within the statutory time frame.

39. The W.P. Crl. No. 884/2025 which is pending before the High

Court on the issue of formation of SOP/guidelines for political rallies

shall be assigned by the Chief Justice to the Division Bench for further

hearing.

40. It is clarified that the interim order is passed on the prima facie

opinion, subject to further orders after filing of the counter affidavits.

………………………………,J.

 [J.K. MAHESHWARI]

………………………………,J.

 [N.V. ANJARIA]

NEW DELHI;

OCTOBER 13, 2025.

OPEN APPEAL TO THE HON’BLE PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA AND THE HON’BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF ANDHRA PRADESH

                    OPEN APPEAL 

TO 

THE HON’BLE PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA 

                     AND 

THE HON’BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Subject: Earnest Appeal for Announcement and Establishment of the High Court Bench at Kurnool — in Fulfilment of the Long-Pending Promise to the People of Rayalaseema

Respected Sir(s),

I, M. Murali Mohan, Advocate, Atmakur , Nandyal Dist., most respectfully submit this appeal with a deep sense of responsibility, faith, and constitutional conviction.

The members of the legal fraternity of Rayalaseema, and the people of this region, look forward with hope and trust to your esteemed leadership to fulfil the long-standing and repeatedly assured promise of establishing a High Court Bench at Kurnool.

Historical Background and Fulfilling an Unkept Promise

The people of Rayalaseema have been carrying this demand with patience, persistence, and dignity for decades. From the very inception of the Andhra State, Kurnool has held a place of honour and history, having served as the first capital of Andhra. It was from here that the foundations of our modern administrative and judicial systems were laid.

When Andhra Pradesh was reorganized, it was expected that Kurnool, as the gateway to Rayalaseema, would continue to play a vital role in the dispensation of justice. Successive governments, leaders, and commissions — including the Justice Jaswant Singh Commission and the Law Commission of India — have repeatedly recognized the need for regional benches of High Courts to ensure that justice is not a distant privilege but an accessible right.

In the same spirit, the Hon’ble Prime Minister and the Hon’ble Chief Minister have on earlier occasions expressed their commitment to establish a Bench at Kurnool, recognizing its historical, geographical, and constitutional justification.

The public meeting scheduled to be held on 16th October 2025 at Kurnool offers a historic opportunity to honour that promise — to bring justice closer to the people of Rayalaseema and to reaffirm the principle of judicial decentralization as the soul of equitable governance.

The Constitutional and Moral Imperative

The Constitution of India, through its very Preamble, promises Justice — social, economic, and political.

 The Supreme Court of India has time and again held that the right to access justice is part of the fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21.

True justice cannot exist in isolation — it must be reachable, affordable, and timely. Today, litigants from the Eight districts of Rayalaseema are compelled to travel long distances to Amaravati to seek redress, often at considerable financial and emotional cost. For many, justice delayed or made distant becomes justice denied.

Establishing a High Court Bench at Kurnool is, therefore, not merely an administrative decision — it is a constitutional necessity and a moral duty.

Kurnool is the Natural and Just Choice

Kurnool’s claim to host the High Court Bench is supported by logic, history, geography, and fairness.

Historic Legacy: Kurnool was the first capital of Andhra State, and it continues to embody the spirit of Rayalaseema’s contribution to the State’s formation.

Geographical Suitability: Centrally located and easily accessible from Anantapur, Nandyal, Kadapa,Satyasai ,Annamayyaam, Tirupathi , Chittoor and Kurnool provides equitable reach for the entire Rayalaseema region.

Existing Infrastructure: The city already possesses robust judicial, educational, and civic infrastructure, capable of accommodating a functioning Bench with immediate effect.

Equity and Balance: The establishment of a Bench at Kurnool would bring regional balance to the judicial setup of the State, just as the High Court at Amaravati serves the coastal region.

The citizens of Rayalaseema do not seek special treatment; they seek only equal opportunity and access to justice within their constitutional rights.

Purpose of the Present Appeal

The purpose of this appeal, and the emergency meetings convened by various Bar Associations, is to deliberate upon and support the abstention from court work — not as an act of defiance, but as a peaceful expression of our collective will, urging that both the Hon’ble Prime Minister and the Hon’ble Chief Minister announce the establishment of the High Court Bench at Kurnool at the forthcoming public meeting on 16th October 2025.

This abstention is an act of democratic assertion, grounded in respect for law and the institutions of governance. It is a plea for justice, not a protest against authority. It represents the voice of advocates, litigants, and the people of Rayalaseema who believe that the temple of justice must have open doors for all.

An Appeal from the Heart of Rayalaseema

Respected Sir(s), this appeal flows from faith — not frustration.

Faith in your visionary leadership, faith in your commitment to fairness, and faith in your resolve to ensure that every region of Andhra Pradesh enjoys equal justice and opportunity.

Rayalaseema has always stood firm in loyalty, sacrifice, and trust. The announcement of a High Court Bench at Kurnool will not only fulfil a promise but restore the emotional and constitutional balance within the State. It will transform faith into fulfilment, and commitment into legacy.

Our Humble Prayer

In the above circumstances, I most respectfully appeal to your good selves to:

Announce the establishment of the High Court Bench at Kurnool in the forthcoming public meeting at Kurnool on 16th October 2025;

Initiate immediate steps to operationalise the Bench by providing necessary judicial and administrative infrastructure; and

Redeem the promise made to the people of Rayalaseema, thus upholding the ideals of justice, equality, and balanced governance.

Conclusion

Respected Sir(s), moments of history define the greatness of leadership.

 The announcement of the High Court Bench at Kurnool would be such a defining moment — one that will echo across generations as an act of statesmanship, justice, and faith honoured.

We, the advocates of Kurnool and the people of Rayalaseema, stand united in our appeal and assure our complete cooperation in realising this noble and long-awaited objective.

With highest respect and enduring hope,

Yours faithfully,

 (Sd/-)

 M. MURALI MOHAN

 Advocate, Kurnool